Patty clearly does. When religion agrees with her. She wants to force religious beliefs on people when the religion agrees with her on a topic. And doesn’t want to force religious beliefs on people when the religion disagrees with her on a topic.

“If you don’t support the teachings of the Catholic Church on immigration, poverty relief, climate change etc… then you can’t claim to support them on any other issue.”

I’m not Catholic. but I don’t agree that one has to “support the teachings of the Catholic Church on everything to support them on other issues.” The Catholic Church has been known to change it’s collective mind and the current Pope’s position on immigration is political – not scripture.

You categorised him as ‘a creepy old white guy clinging to power’, while describing Trump as your President. The implication being that Trump cannot be ‘a creepy old white guy clinging to power’ because he is your President. Well Schumer is your Senate Minority Leader. So if Trump’s office preclude him from being ‘a creepy old white guy clinging to power’ then so does Schumer’s.

Seamus: you might not be aware of this but there has been a Democrat movement called “not my President” against the Presidency of Donald J Trump. Part of “the Resistance.” It came with rallies, and Facebook and performance art etc. – a whole pop culture extravaganza designed to delegitimize the President of the United States.

when I wrote that Donald J Trump was my President (which is obvious to all) I was making a pop culture, in your face reference back to those who have been saying otherwise for the past 2 years. I said it for fun.

I would imagine a Trump person who would object to an old rich white politician might first want to acknowledge that they support an old rich white person. I don’t think any of those factors are disqualifying personally. Pelosi is pretty wealthy, Schumer isn’t really. In any event their response wasn’t what you claim.

More than the net worth of most, but he clearly is not ” rich ” – he likely would have been much wealthier had he gone into private law practice after graduating Harvard law rather than going into government.

Schumer and Pelosi looked ridiculous, squeezed in behind that little podium. Just from a visual standpoint, they were terrible. I don’t know why the party opposite does these rebuttals, as they seldom work.

When each new Congress is gaveled into session, the chambers attach symbolic importance to the first piece of legislation to be considered. For that reason, it bears the lofty designation of H.R.1 in the House and S.1 in the Senate.

In the newly controlled Democratic House, H.R.1 — meant to signal the new majority’s priorities — is an anti-corruption bill that combines election and campaign finance reform, strengthening of voting rights, and matching public funds for small-dollar candidates. In the 2017 Senate, the GOP-controlled S.1 was a bill, called the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” that, among other provisions, cut various forms of corporate taxes.

But in the 2019 GOP-controlled Senate, the first bill to be considered — S.1 — is not designed to protect American workers, bolster U.S. companies, or address the various debates over border security and immigration. It’s not a bill to open the government. Instead, according to multiple sources involved in the legislative process, S.1 will be a compendium containing a handful of foreign policy-related measures, the main one of which is a provision — with Florida’s GOP Sen. Marco Rubio as a lead sponsor — to defend the Israeli government. The bill is a top legislative priority for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

The first piece of legislation presented to the House is supported by the bought-and-paid-for goyim of both sides of the aisle, as well as those whose ‘loyalty’ belongs outside of the US……

With the seven Democratic co-sponsors, the bill would have the 60 votes it needs to overcome a filibuster. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. — who supported Cardin’s far more draconian bill of last year and is one of the Senate’s most reliable AIPAC loyalists — also plans to support the Rubio bill, rather than whip votes against it, sources working on the bill said. Schumer’s spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

If the bill does pass the Senate, the major question will be whether the Democratic House — now led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a longtime Israel advocate but also as a supporter of the First Amendment — takes it up and passes it into law.

You do not defeat terrorism by rewarding terrorists, regardless of how many bleeding heart liberals argue otherwise. Want to know where that flawed approach leads to? Read UNIONISM DECAYED 1997-2007 - It's my first book and it explains what happens when you seeek to appease terrorists and call it peace. It's available right now for ATW readers so make sure you get your copy by emailing the editor! This is the book that dissents from the herd mentality that doing wrong can lead to being right. It doesn't and this book spells out WHY.

Copyright & copy; 2010 A Tangled Web (All rights reserved).Comments on articles here are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of A Tangled Web or David Vance. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise unacceptable may be deleted by the Editor. However the fact a particular comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by David Vance of the views expressed therein.